“The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them." Peter Duesberg, 2009

BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!

Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

Karri Stokely is a poster girl for a different way to look at health. After receiving an Aids diagnosis in 1996, at the age of 29, she was treated for 11 years with a cocktail of drugs. But then she saw an internet video saying that HIV was a hoax, stopped taking her medicines – and felt terrific.

"I'm not getting any answers from the mainstream as to why I'm healthy, and why my husband is negative, and why I can quit these drugs," she explains in her own video, which is currently being promoted online. "I think it's a crime. It's crimes against humanity."
Her doctor was aghast – HIV treatment is for life. "He looked me right in the eyes and said: 'You have done a very stupid thing, and you will be dead very soon,'" Stokely recalls. "My response to him was: 'That's funny, because right now I'm feeling pretty good.'"

That was in April 2007. She died four years later, so her comments are a postcard from the past. "Karri Stokely passed away on April 27th 2011,"explains a website run by London journalist Joan Shenton. "She said she wouldn't go quietly so we are keeping her moving interview below on our homepage."

But Stokely's path (via pneumonia) was already well trodden. Dying in denial is a phenomenon. The first traveller on this path I knew was an American singer, Michael Callen, author of a self-help book, Surviving Aids. It was published by HarperCollins in 1990. Three years later, Mikey died.

Shenton is Britain's premier critic of what she calls the "completely wrong" science of HIV. Her site offers as examples the cases of Jody Wells and Huw Christie, the first two editors of a fringe magazineContinuum. Both chose not to follow medical advice and found death.

"We're waking up to the truth and the more of us that survive and live on in health to beat the odds, the more the lie will be shown up for what it is," Wells wrote in May 1994, 16 months before he passed away.

That was just before new therapies transformed life expectancy, and saw many young men who might have followed his denial path rise from their deathbeds and go dancing.

Shenton's site also showcases material on Christine Maggiore, a Californian businesswoman who helped found an international group, now called "Alive and Well Aids Alternatives". That was before her three-year-old HIV-positive daughter died of pneumonia and, in 2008, her own death.

"This was a woman of class, grace, integrity and wisdom," comments Stokely on an internet memorial wall put up after Maggiore's funeral. "From the time we found out 'the truth' surrounding the Aids debacle, Christine had always made herself available for help and guidance."

These crusaders' passing, however, gives paradoxical power to those who ushered them along in their journey. Like many health and science cranks (and shrewd defence lawyers), those who persist in the assertion that Aids isn't infectious brandish their embarrassments, thrust them in your face, before moving to the next level of denial.

Shenton, who is now archiving a quarter century of uninterrupted campaigning, assures me on the phone that "Karri is very important".

"I think she died from the side-effects of the drugs. She'd stopped taking them, but she'd been taking them for about 10 years before."

There's no answer to that, of course, but while Shenton comes across as the queen of denial, its pharaoh also has some words on Maggiore's fate. According to Peter Duesberg, the scientist who fathered this philosophy, about 6% of deaths in the over 50s are from pneumonia, and "she is one of those."

"Big deal," he snaps about her death, in a frankly barking podcast interview. "It's nothing. It's consistent with everything I know."

Two weeks' from now, Duesberg, 74, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, celebrates (and I have to suppose he will) 25 years of this stuff. For it was on 1 March 1987 that, in a 22-page paper, he set out his case that HIV is harmless.

"It is concluded," he declared in the journal Cancer Research, "that Aids virus is not sufficient to cause Aids and that there is no evidence, besides its presence in a latent form, that it is necessary for Aids."

Thus was born the "Duesberg hypothesis", which his critics say has led to sickness and death far beyond white, middle-class eccentrics. By some reckonings, in South Africa alone the denialist convictions of former president Thabo Mbeki led to more than 300,000 premature fatalities and 35,000 preventable infant infections.

In fact, Aids denialism predates the Duesberg hypothesis. It was born in the first months of the epidemic. Even in 1981, when I wrote my first report, there were what I then called "two competing hypotheses" for the disease, which had just been spotted by US government epidemiologists among East and West Coast gay men.

One proposed an infection, the other a crummy "lifestyle". And little has changed since then. Although science backed the first, the second limped on, blaming recreational drugs, pharmaceuticals and sexual practices in developed countries, and water, bugs and nutrition in Africa.

The website that features Stokely and Maggiore on its front page proclaims that it is "Rethinking Aids", but as 25 years have been torn from the calendar, little has been rethought. They still say HIV is harmless, or doesn't exist, and that leading Aids scientists are "criminals". Heterosexuals don't get sick from HIV and millions of Africans aren't infected. And there's apparently a global conspiracy to conceal this.

"My secret to staying healthy is really nothing magical," explains Stokely, meanwhile, in her, perhaps eternal, message in a bottle. "I think a very, very large part of it, as with any diagnosis you get, is the biology of belief. The mind is very, very strong on the health of the human body."

Brian Deer was named UK specialist journalist of the year at the 2011 British Press Awards

Chasing ambulances?You mean the way AIDS Deniers like Maniotis, Farber, Crowe, and Duesberg chase and exploit people who have tested positive for HIV? Like Karri Stokely? You mean that kind of chasing?I just don't think so.If I were a lawyer I would be launching a Class Action with families of those who have died against Rethinking AIDS. Yep, that's what I would be doing.

" 32% (low risk controls) had indeterminate Western blot tests, most of which demonstrated a single band of lowintensity. The most common bandswere p24 (47%), GAG p17 p55 (34%), and POL p31 p66 (36%); envelope bands were unusual (gp41, 2%; gp120, 2%)."

All lines appear in uninfected patientes, therefore the simultaneous appearance of several lines is a matter of pure chance!

Using the probabilities of each line given in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230270 and the positivity criterium of the CDC, we can estimate the probability of a positive WB "by chance" in a low-risk population.

I keep waiting for the day these individuals will "wake up" and realize the folly of their ways, but perhaps I am far too expectant of them.

It would appear that no manner or amount of clinical or laboratory literature seems to sway them, with the possible exception of fringe and discredited individuals who do not even study HIV in any manner to begin with.

Even the death of their "friends" and colleagues appears to only be a temporary speed bump in the apparent lunacy.

I hate to say this, as it is a somewhat fatalistic position, but maybe the best thing for all those concerned for HIV+ denialists to die off as rapidly as possible. The sooner they die, the sooner they will no longer be able to potentially endanger others.

I have tried to reason with them. I have posted FISH (Fluorescence in situ hybridization) genetic sequences showing HIV isolates and the subsequent viral characteristics.

I have given them extremely detailed laymen explanations of HIV pathogenesis backed up by an assortment of PubMed documentation.

I have given detailed and well documented descriptions of AIDS causation by the culmination of HIV Immunosuppression via CD4+ T cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells.

I have even gone so far as to make use of my medical research databases to pull articles of cutting edge theoretical microbiology in an effort to help them understand the future of HIV research

Robby, I understand your frustration, but I think you have missed the whole point here.

It is futile trying to address HIV/AIDS denialism through clinical or laboratory data, or by detailed laymen explanations of HIV pathogenesis or by presenting cutting edge theoretical microbiology.

Lots of us have tried, and failed.

HIV/AIDS denialism is a phenomenon within social psychology. Seth (who owns this blog) is a social psychologist.

HIV/AIDS denialists have not reached their positions by a rational examination of virology, or epidemiology or infectious diseases medicine. It is a waste of time to think you can change their minds by rational argument in those domains.

Which is why it's so important to understand the social psychology of the phenomenon.

It would appear as though you are a 100% correct, and I admit I do not know the first thing about the social or behavioral sciences unless you count Gen Ed courses from several years ago.

Their disdain for the academic, clinical and medical science communities is astounding. Several people from the questioning aids forum even emailed my university in an effort to "get me in trouble" with the professor who manages my graduate portfolio and research. Him and I had a good laugh over it over coffee last week.

I suppose it is my flaw in approaching a matter scientifically with people whose obvious stock and trade is rhetoric and propaganda.

For whatever reason, it just irks me in ways I lack the colorful adjectives to describe that individuals could be so scientifically inept. Its like reserve critical thinking skills.

It sort of reminds of a bunch of people from the dramatic arts department (sorry I know one too many wierdo theater majors) trying to haphazardly navigate through an intro biology course. They may know some basic terminology at the end of the semester, but they could no more analyze and apply that information than my dog being able to deal a hand of poker.

I have tried to have reasonable scientific discussions with denialists before, and its never proven to be a sequential conversation since they have absolutely no bearing in evidence based clinical or lab work.

Some of them can indeed "talk the talk" to a point, but it soon becomes obvious they have no idea what they are discussing and are merely parroting. As an example, when they talk at length on a specific (and minute) detail in viral pathogenic response in one sentence, and then in the next demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of even basic cell biology, its quite obvious they are ignorant.

Calling them on this does not seem to help either, it just pisses them off and makes them even more irrational sending them off into fits about how academia is just another "tool of the orthodoxy".

notElon, what if I understood science better than you and I could prove your assumptions wrong?

Isolation has a different translation in "hiv speak" that doesn't mean isolation at all. RT and p24 as markers are a fraud, because they're not exclusive of hiv. But this is all these "scientists" look for during their so-called "isolation". Not good enough for any scientist worthy of that name!

p24 is indeed exclusive to HIV. I should know. It is true there are other proteins that also weigh 24 kilodaltons, and perhaps at one time we could not distinguish one retroviral p24 from another [Arguably not true. See the seminal 1985 paper], but certainly we can now. We have crystallized it, imaged it with x-ray and electron and STM, derived its amino acid chain structure, determined its functions and common mutants, and studied its stacking affinity. It is probably identified as well as anything else. I can go to the lab next door and "see" it, and by "see" I mean to the same extent I can visualize anything else that small. To deny the science of studying HIV is to deny modern molecular biology. The Rethinking AIDS people just figured that out. That is why they are going back and denying syphilis, and tuberculosis, and polio, and vaccine efficacy. They realized that nothing meets their "science".

p24 is exclusive of HIV. It is true there are other proteins that weigh 24,000 daltons. However, we have isolated p24 in so many ways, that it is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely that it does not exist. We have obtained its crystal structure and studied it with X-ray spectroscopy. We have attached fluorescent dye to p24 and analyzed it that way. We have created antibodies that only bind to p24. We have studied the genetic structure of all the common forms of it. We have visualized it with electron microscopy. We have studied how it aggregates into the viral capsid. Inasmuch as you can say we have "seen" something that small, I can go to the lab next door and get a picture of it.

So if I sound a little incredulous that my assumptions are wrong, forgive me. I know one is supposed to keep an open mind, but the evidence is fairly conclusive.

Robby, you are probably right. All the studies in the world won't convince these people. One cannot have a reasonable scientific discussion with them. Maybe it is a matter of pride, but I am simply incapable of giving up. If only because some other HIV+ person might stumble upon this discussion, and conclude we scientists really don't know what we are talking about.

notElton: "...p24 is exclusive of HIV. It is true there are other proteins that weigh 24,000 daltons..."

If you read Gallo's and Montagnier's papers on their characterization of HIV, they made no check as to whether the p24 they found in SOME AIDS PATIENTS was viral or not other than assuming it was.

Their assumption was based on having performed an attempt of physical isolation of HIV in a sucrose gradient and having sampled the ASSUMED right density slice.

The blindly ASSUMED HIV was there, even though no microscopic evidence was provided.

Therefore the alleged viral nature of that p24 is purely speculative. Healthy people are being put on life-threatening chemo based on this speculation alone.

notElton: "..However, we have isolated p24 in so many ways, that it is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely that it does not exist..."

No wonder, since p24's are ubiquitous cellular components how could they not exist? They can be found almost anywhere and that's the reason their presence not by far any proof of HIV.

notElton: "...We have created antibodies that only bind to p24..."

That's nonsense. Antibodies are promiscuous and bind to any protein containing a matching epitope somewhere in its molecule.

There's an unlimited number of antibodies that bind to p24 and up to 60 conditions have been documented to produce them.

HIV science is riddled with weak assumptions. It wouldn't matter little if this massive misdiagnosis was not putting healthy people on deadly chemo, but this BAD SCIENCE has the tragic consequence of ruining millions of lives.

ntoElton: "...We have studied how it aggregates into the viral capsid. .."

That's preposterous... when you talk about "isolation" you're actually talking about RT and p24... You don't even have the virus yet you pretend to know have gone beyond it and know what the viral capsid is and what it does. Then you go on and illustrate your speculative preconceptions using 3D models pretending they're the real thing.

Gallo and his colleagues have repeatedly stated that the p24s of HTLV-I and HIV immunologically cross-react.

notElon: "..We have created antibodies that only bind to p24..."

Antibodies to p24 have been detected in 1 out of 150 healthy individuals, 13% of randomly selected otherwise healthy patients with generalised warts, 24% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and prodrome and 41% of patients with multiple sclerosis.

The p24 antigen is not found in all HIV positive or even AIDS patients. In one study, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and p24 were used to detect HIV in patients at various CDC stages from asymptomatic to AIDS. p24 was detected in 24% patients and HIV RNA in 50%.

Indeed, and I have traveled down the isolation path with them numerous times as well with no effect. Your above discussion is pretty much identical to several others I have had in regards to HIV genetics, structure, protein envelope and isolation. They always repeat themselves over and over again in hopes it will become more convincing via repetition.

Just to piggy back some of your own analysis, p24 is actually typical of lentiviruses: HIV, SIV (MRCA to humans likely in the early 1900's), FIV, etc. It also shares the similarity of a long incubation period and a brutally efficient gene delivery vector. This, however, is where the similarities end.

From a genetic structure standpoint, it deviates significantly from any known infectious agent, which is why it is so fascinating to virus hunters like myself and others in academia and medicine.

I won't go into isolation characteristics in detail for our "friend" above as I think it is a waste of my keystrokes and time. However, if Duesberg and his harem of hacks are so convinced we are wrong, its not like he has not had ample opportunity to prove us wrong over the course of the last 2 decades.

He could take some of the money from his speaker fees, the sales of books, the money he's gotten from Rath Vitamins, Inc. to sell their products and use it to generate some data in support of his hypothesis.

He should start by setting his lab up to handle HIV,﻿ which he has never worked with.

From a scientific standpoint, it would be like me walking into the astronomy and planetary science department and asserting that Saturn really does not exist using Einstein's theory of everything as "proof".

supraflyrobby: "...I won't go into isolation characteristics in detail for our "friend" above as I think it is a waste of my keystrokes and time...."

You're bragging and wouldn't last the first assault.

And please, spare intelligent minds your irrelevant comparisons of virology with astronomy. Nobody is being poisoned to death for the existence of Saturn, nor its existence has been "inferred" from false preconceptions as is the case with HIV.

I didn't base anything I wrote on Gallo and Montagnier's work. How they isolated p24 is important only to historians. Those were written before I was born. The fact that you live in the past is pathetic, but research moves on.

You have no idea what you are blabbering about. Gallo never used FRET or half the other techniques I mentioned. Gallo never manufactured artificial antibodies, that yes, are specific to HIV-1 alone. Gallo never imaged viruses one atom at a time with an STM tip, or used lentiviral vectors to treat cancer. Science moved on. You clearly have not.

Go stand in a corner with your friend there who thinks we faked the moon landing, and your other friend who probably thinks Magellen's voyage was all a conspiracy. If yu excuse me, I'm going to get back to advancing mankind.

“...Experience has shown that HIV culture and ‘standalone’ tests for p24 antigen are of limited diagnostic value. They may be insensitive and/or non-specific, and they are expensive compared with the standard serological screening tests.........When testing for p24 Ag it must be remembered that it, too, is prone to false positivity, which must be ruled out by a neutralisation test.”

You guys are trapped in the circular logic conundrum "p24 is HIV because HIV is p24" and killing scores of healthy people in the process. History will be cruel with you, but not as cruel as you are to your healthy patients.

> Gallo never imaged viruses one atom at> a time with an STM tip, or used lentiviral > vectors to treat cancer. Science moved on. > You clearly have not.

What's been achieved with other viruses but never been achieved with HIV,. You claim it was yet you can't produce any evidence.

HIV pseudoscience is still stuck with Gallo. So sad! You admit yourself he didn't find any virus... a speck of honesty among all this fraud. Gallo just went through the motions and claimed a viral origing for his "HIV proteins" without excluding their being of cellullar nature.

No later study has bothered to check the accuracy of Gallo's claims nor proven the viral nature of his antigens. I challenge you to produce one that has.

Instead, Gallo's antigens were accepted at face value and have been used to this day in the manufacturing of HIV tests (viral lysates).

Gallo's antigens were later used as the starting point of synthetic antigens and monoclonal antibodies. No challege to Gallo from the people who did that. His antigens have been the unquestioned base of every single later work. The whole HIV edifice has been built upon his errors ever since.

You're probably talking about the paper published in Science on 27th March 2009 by Hubner et al claiming: "...With use of an infectious, fluorescent clone of HIV, we tracked the movement of Gag in live CD4 T cells and captured the direct translocation of HIV across the virological synapse..."

Their data only show discrete fluorescent points of certain proteins "...that apparently localise at the plasma membrane" and in the extracellular space.

Nowhere in this paper or in its references is there any evidence of virus particles. All they have is an accumulation of green protein in some buds at the cell surface and transfer to another cell. Such buds will appear in any cell, especially malignant cells such as the Jurkat cells used for the experiments

No contempt with that level of baseless speculation, they spin it further into la-la-land as the title shows "...biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells"!!!

On what do they base their claims? Since viruses are submicroscopic particles, without electron micrographic proof it is impossible to claim there are "...virus-like particles, virions, budding virions" or "..biogenesis of individual HIV-1 virions in live cells".

But then again, HIV pseudoscience has attracted to its ranks the lowest common denominator of intelligence in the graduate community. It's the only way to perpetuate the sham.

Certainly, he just provided your later "Noble prices" with the wrong antigen p24 to work on.

What good are the best antibodies in the world when they target the wrong, non-viral antigen?

I bet this obvious consequence of Gallo's errors have never crossed your great believer's mind.

Sure, all those misdiagnoses are a huge source of the experimental subjects needed to justify this multi-billion dollar industry... so just look the other way or close your eyes while you extend the palm of your hand!

A close look at the manufacturing and VALIDATION of such artificial antibodies that "specific to HIV-1 alone" reveals that they are still TODAY being validated using the old fraudulent Gallo's concoctions from 1983:

http://www.cmi.ustc.edu.cn/4/3/203.pdf

Preparation and Characterization of Three Monoclonal Antibodies against HIV-1 p24 Capsid Protein

"...In specificity assay, different virus lysate were added instead of HIV-1IIIB lysate and lysate of H9 culture supernatant was used as control and an anti-HIV-1 p24 mAb (kindly provided by Dr. Hiroo Hoshino of Gunma University School of Medicine, Japan) was used as positive control..."

Gallo created this fake culture, called H9 (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-06-06/news/9306060095_1_gallo-case-aids-virus-scientific-misconduct/2), to make it more difficult for anyone else to test his theories, contending that the H9 culture was the only one in which the AIDS virus would grow. In essence, Gallo stole the culture called HUT78 from Dr. Adi Gazdar, claimed he was the developer of this new culture called H9, and then limited who had access to it.

And even Duesberg is not so insane to believe it doesn't exist. Honestly all cells have little buds full of assembling protein particles and nucleic acids coming out of them? Pray tell what those could be. Baby cells?

Um, no. I can go to the lab next door and get microscopy pictures of that "non-specific cellular phenomenon entering a cell, and of dozens of IDENTICALLY STRUCTURED non-specific cellular phenomena leaving, and then see the cell die.

In addition, during production of those non-cellular phenomena, normal cell functions shut down.

I can add a drug as the "non-specific cellular phenomenon" enters the cell, and thus prevent the "nonspecific cellular phenomena" from exiting.

This raises several questions. If one of these particles really is a retrovirus experts call HIV, what are all the others? If the HIV particles originate from the tissues of AIDS patients, where do all the others come from?

"...Extensive plasma membrane blebbing occurs followed by karyorrhexis and separation of cell fragments into apoptotic bodies during a process called “BUDDING.” Apoptotic bodies consist of cytoplasm with tightly packed organelles with or without a NUCLEAR FRAGMENT".

Again: NOTHING SPECIFIC TO HIV, no "special" phenomenon that requires a new virus to explain.

Yes, the cells are perfectly healthy, and then, bam, for no reason: Instant Apoptosis. Apoptosis, that I might add is somehow prevented by bathing the cells in the substance you call "the most toxic known to man."

If you actually read the abstracts of those papers you cited on viral structure, you would see that not only did they culture the virus in other lines besides H9, but that all the particles did show a commonality of structure. Particularly once they developed. HIV, unlike say Poliovirus [which also exists] had a fluid envelope, so you would not expect the outside the have the same exact shape every time, particularly when the image is taken as the virus forms. Images of budding influenza or measles or poxviruses or half a dozen other enveloped particles also show some variation. I suppose none of those exist either.

> the cells are perfectly healthy, and then,> bam, for no reason: Instant Apoptosis

Citations please? ... you're a good comedian but it has become too obvious you make things up as you go.

There's no "instant explosive apoptosis", but simply apoptosis.

About the cause of cell death... look at the variety of chemicals they need to throw into the culture in order to "produce hiv" (in reality produce apoptosis) and get a few clues!

http://dare.uva.nl/document/185000

"Cell culture

"... The U87.CD4 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum (FCS), penicillin (100 units per ml) and streptomycin (100ug/ml). In addition, neomycin (300ug/ml) and puromycin (1ug/ml) were added to the culture medium to maintain CD4 and coreceptor expression, respectively. ... Patient PBMCs (1.5×106 cells) were activated overnight using 2ug/ml of phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% inactivated FCS, 100 units/ml of interleukin 2 (IL-2) and antibiotics. The following day the PBMCs were washed and applied onto a confluent layer of U87.CD4 cells in DMEM. The culture medium was refreshed every 2–3 days and selection antibiotics were added again 2 days later..."

I guess all those substances just pep-up and revitalize the cells... perhaps if we add them to our food we can live forever?

Finally, the so-called "scientits" look for our old friend p24 and shout "Eureka HIV!" if the non-specific marker is found (same old scam):

"...Virus production was monitored by syncytia formation and by frequent CA-p24 ELISA (in-house) on the cultures upernatant..."

When you can't produce consistent "hiv" results from one culture to another (or even within the same sample), instead of questioning your assumptions you just cover-up the failure with more free-wheeling speculation.

Viruses are molecular particles and their structure is more akin to crystals. They're always the same, and more so retroviruses which have a smaller size and therefore less room for change.

Animal data show that the yield and rate of appearance of such retroviruses can be accelerated a millionfold by chemically stimulating the cell cultures in the same manner as cultures derived from tissues of AIDS patients are manipulated to obtain "HIV" (see my reference above).

Significantly enough, no "HIV" appears in cell cultures unless the cells are manipulated in this manner.

At least a decade before the AIDS era virologists including Gallo knew that particles with appearances similar to retroviruses may be found in cell cultures which had not been "infected" with a retrovirus.

These can be than "cellular fragments", microsomes from disrupted cells, "membraneous vesicles which may enclose other cellular constituents including nucleic acids", especially when "inadvertent lysis of cells" was induced.

In "HIV" research lysis is deliberately performed to obtain the "HIV" RNA and proteins.

In the only EM study in which suitable controls were used and in which extensive blind examination of controls and test material was performed, virus particles indistinguishable from "HIV" were found in 18/20 (90%) of AIDS as well as in 13/15 (88%) of non-AIDS or no risk of AIDS related lymph node enlargements.

This led the authors to conclude: "The presence of such particles do not, by themselves indicate infection with HIV"

> Funny. You can find hundreds or thousands of > micrographs showing HIV. To my eye, these > particles are obviously viral in nature. I > suppose they don't count.

In ahort, any virus-like particle you see has to be HIV. Iinconsistency doesn't matter, characterization (only possible after previos purification) is not necessary... anything goes for HIV if you want it to be HIV...

At Virology.net http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html you find 25 "hiv" images. Most are artists' renditions or computer graphics. Only EIGHT are EM pictures but NONE identify the source or nature of the medium. Even worse, NONE has a size bar, so it's not possible to measure the size of the particles or any other morphological feature.

This is highly unprofessional because the dimensions of particles is critical to taxonomy.

The best conclusion one can draw from those pictures is the existence in unidentified cell cultures of minute quantities of particles of indeterminate size which possess certain other morphological features.

Since these are the pictures we've have been looking at all these years, is the claim "These EMs are a retrovirus HIV" justified?

First, how do we interpret this image: http://www.theperthgroup.com/PICTURES/PLACENTA.JPG ?

Compare it to this EM at Virology: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS003.html

both show particles budding from a cell but, whereas the second image is tagged "HIV", the first is a typical type-C retroviral particle found in a healthy, human placenta:

"...Retroviral-like particles are ubiquitous. In the 1970s such particles were frequently observed in human leukaemia tissues, cultures of embryonic tissues and "in the majority if not all, human placentas".

Not only are the "original HIV" particle found in normal, "non-HIV" infected human placentas, but teh "specific" "HIV" proteins p18, p24 and gp120 as well!:

do we conclude that all healthy, pregnant women are also infected with a retrovirus HIV? Obviously not. It's is essential to exercise great care when interpreting EM images bearing particles with the appearances of retroviruses.

To prove the particles claimed as "HIV" are a retroviruses and not inert atter, they must be separated from all other biological material (purified) which might be stimulating the cells to produce similar particles.

After purification they'd be added to "uninfected" cell cultures. If identical particles are obtained with all the morphological and biochemical properties of retroviruses, then a scientist can claim the particles are a retrovirus. If this procedure is not followed then we cannot exclude the possibility that the particles are the result of being sick or the culture conditions, or both.

To date there's no experimental data proving that "HIV" particles have been purified, much less data that the same particles generate identical particles. Thus there is no basis for the NIAID claim that the particles seen at the link on their website are a retrovirus.

Ah, down memory lane: c. 1992 I was counselling HIV+ people, always remarking that eventually it would become a treatable chronic condition- like diabetes- and then, suddenly, *it was*! And the world changed- still we have those who would hark back to the dark days before medical innovation when you fought the virus purely with *belief*!

Robby, the problem is that the big names behind AIDS denial, Duesberg and the Perth group don't have HIV. They'll all likely live out to a ripe old age, while they nearly guarantee their followers won't.

No one that was put on AZT has lived to an old age. Actually they died within 5 years. They all were healthy when they started taking the citotoxic killer.

Today liver failure the first cause of of death among treated seropositives, while those untreated because they "don't know they're infected" are estimated in their millions by teh CDC, and still the statistics AIDS deaths don't reflect their alleged AIDS deaths simply because they're not dying of AIDS.

You do realize we duplicated the polio genome from scratch in a lab and paralyzed animals with it.

If that is not proof, I don't know what is.

SCURVY, PELLEGRA? Is there some sort of vast and secret vitamin conspiracy I am not aware of? I would say you are the most insane, ridiculous person I have ever heard of, but then Clark Baker will probably make me eat my words.

> we duplicated the polio genome > from scratch in a lab and paralyzed > animals with it.

You? As long as you keep using the first person for somebody else's accomplishments you come forward as a joke.

Experiments with macaques and poliovirus using the natural way of infection couldn't reproduce any paralysis. It had to be injected directly into their brains!

Through brain injections you can paralyse any animal with any arbitrary substance of your choice. Take Coke for example. That doesn't prove the Coke causes paralysis in nature.

The proportion of poliovirus carriers that get paralysis is so low that any causal association is unlikely. As unlikely as the trick used to "prove it" through an animal model completeley detached from any epidemiologic reality.

You've been fooled again by a pseudo-scientist going to grotesque lengths to prove his assumptions when they failed.

You fail history, putin. The modern germ theory of disease dates to the second half of the 19th century, thanks to the work of scientists like Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) and Robert Koch (1843-1910).

The British Navy had been using citrus juice to prevent scurvy for a century before then. In fact, physicians in the 16th and 17th century were well aware that some kind of acidic principle in fresh foods prevented and treated scurvy, although no one knew exactly what it was until the discovery of vitamin C in 1928 by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi in Hungary.

Don't believe everything you read in Duesberg's book. In fact, I suggest you don't believe anything you read there.

I haven't read Duesberg's book, what I did is read scores of scentific papes written by hiv-believers like the onse I've reference here. Every single dogma is contradicted by even those who believe in them. The exercise was reminiscent of the contradictions found in the bible.

There's no gold standard to calibrate the surrogate HIV tests. They're used in a circular-logic manner to calibrate each other. The surrogate parameters appear in more then 30% of low-risk people.

The conclusion can be other than HIV infection is a massive misdiagnosis. Further evidence is in the fact that most peopole diagnosed seropositive were perfectly healthy when they heard their diagnostic.

"It's [a gold standard] the opposite of a surrogate marker, if yon't know that then no wonder you're a believer."

Thanks. Now we know you're just an ignorant troll, rambling away at his keyboard.

CRITERION STANDARD. Preferred term to "gold standard." A method having established or widely accepted accuracy for determining a diagnosis, providing a standard to which a new screening or diagnostic test can be compared. The method need not be a single or simple procedure but could include follow-up of patients to observe the evolution of their conditions or the consensus of an expert panel of clinicians, as is frequently used in the study of psychiatric conditions. CRITERION STANDARD can also be used in studies of the quality of care to indicate a level of performance, agreed to by experts or peers, to which the performance of individual practitioners or institutions can be compared.

"...At present, there is NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. Specificity is based on testing of random blood donor and hospitalized patient populations..."

So the standard is not the verified presence of the virus, but the "assumed presence" in sick individuals. Circular logic at its best: "HIV causes AIDS because AIDS patients define who is HIV positive".

The vicious circle has never been broken, because no only antibodies lack a "gold standard", but genetic tests as well:

http://www.annals.org/content/136/6/488.1.full

"...Primary infection was defined as a confirmed positive virologic test result with either a negative HIV antibody assay result or an indeterminate Western blot. Because THERE IS NO VIROLOGICAL GOLD STANDARD, we assumed that levels of plasma HIV RNA had a sensitivity of 100% for diagnosing primary infection.."

Bonus marks for detecting the flaw in this logic!

So we got AIDS doctors pretending there's a "widely accepted" criterium for their bogus diagnoses, when actual scientist have never agreed on one!

These tests are therfore POLITICALY interpreted, no scientifically, with unnecessary deaths as the result of this criminal practice.

*sigh*. A gold standard (criterion standard) for a diagnostic test is a diagnostic procedure widely accepted as having the highest sensitivity and specificity for the condition being diagnosed. Read the frickin' definition and stop making up your own definitions for medical terms.

""...At present, there is NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. Specificity is based on testing of random blood donor and hospitalized patient populations..."

So the standard is not the verified presence of the virus, but the "assumed presence" in sick individuals."

*head/desk*

No, the standard for SPECIFICITY is not assumed PRESENCE in the hospitalised patients and blood donors - specificity is tested against populations with assumed ABSENCE. In this case the groups with assumed ABSENCE were healthy blood donors and sick hospital patients with conditions other than clinically diagnosed HIV/AIDS.

You test SENSITIVITY against populations with assumed presence.

The flaw in what passes for your logic is failing to understand which populations are used to test sensitivity, and which ones are used to test specificity. You have them arse-backwards.

The accuracy of your resulting estimates for sensitivity and specificity will of course depend on how good your assumptions are. However, if your assumptions about your populations are incorrect - if for example a few of your blood donors do in fact have HIV, or some of your clinically diagnosed AIDS patients in fact have something else - then your sensitivity and specificity estimates will be UNDERESTIMATES of the actual sensitivity and specificity of the test you are assessing.

Thus your sensitivity and specificity estimates are minimum values. The true sensitivity and specificity can only be higher - not lower - than your estimates.

Which part of "NO RECOGNIZED STANDARD for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies" you fail to understand?

Which part of "THERE IS NO VIROLOGICAL GOLD STANDARD" you fail to understand?

HIV tests as entirely flawed Rube Goldberg devices... one leading to another, leading to another... all in an attempt to create an overwhelming conclusion that a dozen useless tests must be more meaningful than just one.

You're caught in the stupidest circular logic conundrum known to man.

HIV testing is an absolute, irredeemable fraud being perpetrated against Africans, Indians, Chinese, Eastern and Western Europeans, South and North Americans, and citizens worldwide, worsened by the entirely disgraced "rapid tests" now used in vans and at folding tables in parking lots to grab the poorly educated and hurl them into the pharmaceutical maw.

> if for example a few of your blood donors> do in fact have HIV, or some of your > clinically diagnosed AIDS patients in fact > have something else - then your sensitivity> and specificity estimates will be > UNDERESTIMATES

You're verifying an HIV test against another, for there's no other way of diagnosing "infection" with HIV.

You fail to understand that CONSISTENCY between tests is no the same as ACCURACY of a test.

In fact by testing surrogate tests against more surrogate tests, your trimming the devices to replicate the SAME MISTAKES. Very consistent, but very WRONG.

But what the hell... it isn't even consistent... hiv+ by antibodies can be p24 negative by antigen and RNA positive or negative and co-cultiure positive or negativ or any combination thereof... hiv diagnosis is worse than a chinese bazar.

A pregnancy test "ground truth" is a baby, an HIV test ground truth can't be anything but hiv itself. 30 years of selling bogus surrogate hiv have caused enough deaths, don't you think? or was it the plan all aling?

"...In 2.9 to 12.3% of these women, depending on the test used, the anti-HIV antibodies were present in vaginal fluids that were free of contaminating semen. SINCE THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED GOLD STANDARD TEST, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate..."

So you're peddling bad science when you claim:

1. that HIV tests have a gold standard.

2. that specificity such tests can be estimated without physical viral isolation.

Outrageous claim... specificity is now a SUBJECTIVE measure hbaed on assumptions? What happened to SCIENCE?

Evidently not. I'll try once more, but then I'm giving up. It's pointless to try to educate the willfully ignorant.

Say you've got a new test and you want to estimate its specificity. So you get 10,000 people you assume don't have HIV, and you test them with your new test.

You get 9980 negatives and 20 positive reactions. Your estimated specificity is 99.80%.

But hang on, you say - you are only assuming that none of your 10,000 people have HIV. What if some of them do? What if some of the 20 positive reactions weren't false positives as you are assuming? What if some of them were actually true positives?

Then in that case the true specificity of the test is not 99.80% - it's higher than that. Your 99.80% is the minimum of the true specificity.

You seem to be suggesting that the only appropriate "gold standard" against which to evaluate the specificity of a candidate HIV test is some kind of viral isolation procedure.

In principle you could probably do this, but your viral isolation procedure would need to have a SENSITIVITY of 100% or nearly so. Otherwise the population pool selected by this test would include too many false negatives missed by your viral isolation procedure. Remember, when you are evaluating the specificity of a test you need to select a population that DOESN"T have HIV, not one that does.

What viral isolation procedure are you suggesting, and how did you establish that it has a sensitivity of close to 100%?

> What if some of them do? What if some> of the 20 positive reactions weren't > false positives as you are assuming?

That's the point! How to know who's false positive, real positive, false negative and real negative? only another independent, more reliable test (a gold standard) can help... but there's no such a test.

So hiv serology is trapped in an incestuous circle of arbitrary tests being used to "confirm" subsequent arbitrary tests in circular reasoning.

You can only achieve CONSISTENCY this way (all tests will make the same mistakes) but not ACCURACY. You need the fucking GOLD STANDARD, the isolation of the real thing in the patient, to break out of the circle!

This is not being done. Instead, "low-risk" specimens (pregnant women and blood donors) are being used as "real negatives" (so if one comes out positive it's considered a false positive) and patients with "clinical AIDS" as "true positives".

But both assumptions are wrong. The same low-risk patient will be classified "false positive" when used for calibration but will be "true positive" when diagnosed! a flagrant contradiction.

Also, since there are no unique symptoms of "clinical AIDS", you never know if your "true positives" actually have hiv or not... unless you use another test that has exactly the same calibration problems!

If you still are unwilling to see the crock in diagnosing without a gold standard, then you're either a criminal or a fool.

The standard isolation procedure since virology was born (centrifugation in a glucose gradient) was followed by Gallo in 1983.

The problem is that the procedure ends with an Electron Microscopy (EM) photograph of the purified(free from anything else) retrovirus, which is the proof of success.

This slide: http://s16.postimage.org/w7x4z20yb/Slides14.jpg

shows particles of the Rous sarcoma retrovirus discovered in 1911. The picture published in 1961 confirms it's possible to take an electron micrograph of the 1.16 gm/ml band and show purified, retroviral particles.

In contrast, the EM Gallo provided at the end of hist attempt at purification din't show any purified virus at all, but a mass of cellular debris:

His viral isolation was a failure, yet he pretended there was hiv in there and used this human cellular material to determine what he pretended were "hiv proteins". His obviously biased results were blindly accepted as good ever since.

Now, by showing antibodies to this human material is how people are still today being labeled as "infected" with hiv.

"Therefore, such isolation procedure has to be assumed to be 100% sensitive and 100% specific, the ground truth, the gold standard test."

Sorry, you can't just assume "ground truths" in science, unless you have evidence. All scientific propositions are provisional, and derived from evidence - in this case multiple concordant lines of evidence.

So you need to tell us on what basis of evidence have you decided to assume that your particular proposed virus isolation procedure is 100% sensitive - that is, if you test 10,000 truly infected patients you will successfully isolate the virus all 10,000 times (which is what 100% sensitive means).

> Sorry, you can't just assume "ground truths" in > science, unless you have evidence.

Science means you can't claim infection by an agent you can't find, even if your PCR shows zillions of "copies" and your WB lights up all the bands like a christmas tree. You are obliged to find an alternative explanation for those non-specific phenomena, otherwise you're practiving a CULT.

If only the AIDS vigilantes abided by their own rules, millions of iatrogenic deaths would be avoided.

Interestingly, we seem to have poster *girls* exclusively - I wonder why that is? A new form of misogyny to go with your old time homophobia: encourage the ladies to forego realistic treatment publicly making it much more difficult to recant.

The group at ReThinking AIDS FaceBook are going ballistic! They are going to write a very strongly worded letter and send it to The Guardian! I can't wait to read that letter.

And Celia Farber is furious that Brian Deer used the word "Denialist"! She is asking the group if they want to reinvigorate her old Facebook page denouncing the use of the word "denialist" by the "media". If you remember, Farber started that page all because of the piece that SpliceToday.com published by J. Todd DeShong. He wrote a rebuttal to Crowe's stupid "Potemkin Village". Zach Kaufman from SpliceToday.com wrote the original piece which he picked up from D4D.

So, let them say D4D was not influential, but then why start an entire FB page predicated on DeShong's work? And why now is Farber begging to reinvigorate that page? If AIDS Denialists were so outraged by such a "pejorative" then that FB page would be flourishing and not need to be reinvigorated. This is just further proof that AIDS Denial, or Dissidence or whatever you want to call it, is dying much like the followers are dying as Brian Deer points out in this excellent piece.

"Please do me a favor: Suman Som and others are protesting the pernicious Guardian UK attack on Joan Shenton and Peter Duesberg by the discredited Brian Deer. Please approach Suman and ask how you can help. Anybody who does not yet understand how orchestrated and out for blood these Pharma assassinations are should read and REPOST what I am about to share here, the DEFAMATION LAWSUIT filed by Andrew Wakefield against Brian Deer and BMJ. It is a fraternal twin to my defamation lawsuit against Richard Jefferys, which is far from over. I'll find it and post it. But please, please, READ it and grasp it. Everybody must understand what we are up against. I feel very alone (apart from God,) and every sound, like the one you just made Adolfo, is reassuring..."

Celia Farber must be lying awake at night, trying to think up new ways to publicly humilate herself.

The Denialist/Dissidence group should be thanking Brian Deer for writing this article because they have been wanting for anything that might rally the troops and shake off the level of apathy and lack of involvement of their own members. They have long lost momentum or any focus within their own group because of infighting and division fueled by the Perth Group's bitter revenge of David Crowe and Duesberg. Mainstream will not destroy the dissidents ..their own self generated stalemate/stagnation will!

Whatever, but this dissident here has helped a perfectly healthy pregnant woman diagnosed - against her will - with HIV challenge her diagnosis, reject the mother-to-child hiv transmission prevention protocol, escape Child Services prosecution and deliver in a natural way.

Now she has the healthiest daughter in the neighborhood - never tested for HIV - and she leves her life unmolested as if it all had been a bad dream.

"Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded."http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/24/local/me-eliza24

I hope this child putinreloaded "helped" is luckier than Eliza Jane was.

Although she was the best-known, EJ was far from the only kid who has died because of the stupidity of putinreloaded's group.

> I hope this child putinreloaded "helped"> is luckier than Eliza Jane was.

Eliza was not hiv-positive. Any attepmto to blame hiv for this is either stupidity or manipulation.

This child will never be given amoxicillin, so it won't die from amoxicillin like Eliza did, as simple as that.

Chemotherapy to prevent vertical transmission from mother to child has multiple toxicities that could endanger the lives of both. In any case it induces permanent mitochondrial, genetic and neurological damage in children exposed to treatment. The danger of these substances, especially to an immature baby, gives the mother the right to demand an absolute certainty in the diagnosis not obtainable by surrogate methods.

In case of infection only 13% of untreated infants get infected. The percentage varies from study to study and in many cases is overestimated. Any uncertainty about the diagnosis of the mother reduces the risk of the child being born with HIV.

It is good medical practice to avoid treatments with side effects if certainty in the diagnosis does not exceede 80%. In the mother's case such certainty is less than 50%, which reduces the risk of transmission to less than 6.5%. Under these conditions, chemotherapy will cause unnecessary iatrogenic injury to a baby that has more than 93.5% chance of being born healthy with no intervention at all.

From a purely ethical point of view, it's hard to justify inflicting permanent injury to 94 healthy children to try and prevent the infection of 6.

For all these reasons, in the case of this woman the risks of treatment outweigh the possible benefit.

For the sake of the TRUTH, check out the facts before selling more bogus AIDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Jane_Scovill

"..When Eliza Jane failed to improve, Maggiore took her to see Philip Incao...Incao prescribed amoxicillin for a presumed ear infection.... The following day, Eliza Jane became lethargic and vomited several times. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, Eliza Jane collapsed and stopped breathing.."

Sudden vomiting, lethargy and death... what are the adverse reactions of amoxicillin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoxicillin#Adverse_effects

"...The onset of an allergic reaction to amoxicillin can be very sudden and intense - emergency medical attention must be sought as quickly as possible.... fever, nausea, and vomiting... For some people who are allergic to amoxicillin the side-effects can be deadly...Young children having ingested acute overdoses of amoxicillin manifested lethargy, vomiting and renal dysfunction."

Now the ruthless HIV mongers, like the vultures that they are, try selling their HIV upon the corpse of an innocent child who was killed by amoxicillin.

You're all a fake, you relabel as "AIDS" anything that suits your pharma business, including good hea

"Sudden vomiting, lethargy and death" are not diagnostic of anything - certainly not anaphylaxis.

In real life - rather than in Al-Bayati's imagination - any paramedic or physician would diagnose anaphylaxis on the spot. It's that obvious clinically. Even a bus driver competent in first aid should be able to recognise it.

Not just any old pneumonia - it was Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia (PCP). Same as what her mother died of three years later.

"You can't dignose AIDS without HIV serology... read your own bible!"

Actually, according to the 1999 case definition (which applied in 2005) you could for certain conditions, for example definitively diagnosed PCP in the absence of another cause for profound immunosuppression. "Definitively diagnosed" means by histology, including histology done at autopsy.

But that's irrelevant, because the 2008 epidemiological surveillance requirement for Stage 3 (AIDS) is not for "HIV serology" - it's for "laboratory-confirmed evidence of HIV infection". Laboratory tests for HIV-1 p24 antigen are explicitly included in the case definition.

"Elisa died of the symptoms I mentioned earler"

"Sudden vomiting and lethargy" are non-specific symptoms of a sick kid, not of any disease in particular.

By any definition, Eliza Jane died of AIDS, as the coroner determined, and which has never been challenged by anyone medically qualified.

Sorry, those are the facts. It has nothing to do with "bone pointing" or other witchcraft. You are in denial.

I just hope that the child you "helped" is lucky and turns out to be HIV negative, although your calculations of this probability are way too optimistic.

I probably don't have Pneumocystis jirovecci currently, although I probably have immunity to it from an earlier silent encounter. But even if I did currently have this bug in my body, I don't have Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia.

I am certainly carrying Candida species: all humans do. However, I don't have oesophageal candidiasis.

I probably have CMV and/or Toxoplasma gondii. They are very common. However, I don't have CMV retinitis or cerebral toxoplasmosis.

I almost certainly have at least one of the herpes simplex viruses. Nearly everyone does. However, I don't have disseminated herpes.

Many of the microbes that cause AIDS defining opportunistic diseases are common to almost universal.

But the AIDS defining diseases caused by these microbes are generally rare to non-existent except in people with HIV/AIDS. TB is an exception - it is "only" 30 times more common in people with AIDS.

Eliza-Jane didn't just have Pneumocystis jirovecci - she had Pneumocystis jirovecci pneumonia.

PCP is an extremely rare disease, except in people with untreated HIV/AIDS.

A retrospective study was performed on case reports of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) from 1959 to 2009 in mainland China. The epidemiological characteristics of PCP over half a century were investigated over two time spans. The first was from 1959, when the first incidence of PCP was reported, to 1984, before the emergence of AIDS in mainland China. The second was from 1985, when the first AIDS case was reported in mainland China, to the end of 2009. A total of 2351 PCP cases were reported during these two time spans, covering a 51-year period. Only seven PCP cases were reported during the first time span. Six were diagnosed by autopsy, accordingly without treatment, whilst the other was diagnosed by open lung biopsy in a living patient who eventually recovered following treatment with sulfadiazine and pyrimethamine. The other 2344 PCP cases were reported during the second time span (1985-2009) from 21 provinces, four municipalities and three autonomous regions. Among the 2344 PCP cases, 70.22 % (1646/2344) were identified together with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or were in AIDS patients. The remaining 698 non-HIV-infected patients had undergone organ transplantation, had other underlying diseases such as malignancy or hypoimmunity, or had undetermined diagnosis. The results of statistical analysis indicated that AIDS was the most common underlying disease of PCP for patients <1 year and >14 years. For patients aged between 1 and 14 years, haematological malignancy was the most common underlying disease. The trend of the underlying diseases changed with time, showing that the number of PCP patients afflicted by HIV/AIDS increased dramatically, reaching almost threefold during the most recent 5 years compared with the level of the previous 10 years. The number of patients undergoing organ transplantation or with other underlying diseases rose constantly, but the number of malignancies tended to decline from 1995-2004 to 2005-2009. During the second time span (1995-2009), most of the patients (97.61 %) were diagnosed alive and only 56 cases (2.39 %) were identified by autopsy. The mortality of PCP patients treated with anti-Pneumocystis drugs was 14.61 % for those with HIV/AIDS and 15.84 % for those without HIV/AIDS. For the PCP patients without anti-Pneumocystis treatment, all (100 %) of the HIV/AIDS-associated PCP patients died, whilst 13.79 % (4/29) of non-HIV-infected PCP patients survived. These data from epidemiological investigation of PCP in China over a period of half a century may provide useful information for prevention and the development of treatment of PCP.

Explain again the factors that you think would've caused EJ to have PCP detected in her lungs by GMS. Are you now saying, based on the study you cited, that she was immunocompetent but developed PCP and died of it?

> OK smart guy, go find a study where people show > PCP in their lungs at autopsy by GMS staining in > the absence of severe immune deficiency.

Here you are, fear monger, I must do your homework for you!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492758

Pneumocystis carinii (now jiroveci) in human lungs at AUTOPSY.

"...To get some information about the prevalence of Pneumocystis carinii in the Danish population we have examined autopsy lung biopsies from patients at 2 large hospitals in Copenhagen, Righospitalet (RH) and Finseninstituttet (F),.."

Results:

".. pneumocysts found in 4.7% at RH hospital and in 4.4% at F hospital.."

Now you would diagnose 4.5% of the Danish hospital population with HIV, that's how much of a snake-oil saleswoman you are!

@ blast from the past , quote, This is just further proof that AIDS Denial, or Dissidence or whatever you want to call it, is dying much like the followers , unquote.

Really ? The reality is , whatever you want to call it are getting on with their lives , healthy , free from debilitating medication , free from the compliance teams with degrees in manipulation , free from arseholes who cant see the wood for the trees , and with lawyers suing those fuckers that dont disclose factual scientific data to their patients . And for your information Seth , none of those you mentioned above have been chasing or exploiting me . I wish they would , my story tells of a worse cover up than has allready gone on .

If the best you lot can do is gloat and slander people for choosing life instead of the prison that HIV became , then youv lost the war .

Humanity and giving life and support to those choosing life is something the shitheads who run and gloat on this page know nothing about.

If you were a lawyer Seth , youd be doing exactly the same as the HIV tests and pharmaceutical companies and the politicians , exploiting peoples weakneses by lying to them. Here , i think you might be in with a shout there , you have those credentials already you sad bastard.

Vultures the lot of you , you should be ashamed of yourselves . If you were men at all , youd crawl back under the peice of shit you came from and give the families of the dead the respect they deserve .

As for Deer , gutter press paid for by those with conflicts of interest.

"In my piece I had opined that scientists are no more trustworthy than restaurant managers – whose kitchens are randomly inspected to protect the public. But my commissioning editor told me I couldn't say that in "the house journal of science". I had the impression they felt it just wasn't a reasonable thing to say.

And then came the killer: a five-page contract I would have to sign before I could be welcomed aboard"

Um, botulism is a bacterial infection. There is no dose to lower, unless you refer to the dose of antitoxin. In that case, the infection would indeed be lifelong, with "life" equal to a few pain-filled days.

You obviously have no idea about how botulism toxin works if you think that is the case. Some toxins can build up in the body. Many don't. BT causes acute respiratory failure. I have not seen any evidence that injecting a dose smaller than the one needed to cause this would cause chronic damage. In fact, the immune system mounts a response against BT and neutralizes it. That is how the antitoxin is created. Continuous injection of microdoses would result in immunity, not "chronic botulism."

I haven't seen any evidence that nucleoside analogues build up in tissue, and cause immune collapse either, but you guys seem to take it on faith.

There’s such a plethora of studies. The HIV vigilantes say rethinkers cherry-pick the literature, it's utterly impossible here. The deluge of studies finding the same thing illustrates that highly reproducible results do not alter medical practice when those results contradict mainstream dogma.

You can take healthy people and turn them into "artificial botulism" patients by administering them the toxin, the same way the AIDS industry fabricates artificial "AIDS" patients by giving healthy people immunosuppressant ARVs.

"You can take healthy people and turn them into "artificial botulism" patients by administering them the toxin, the same way the AIDS industry fabricates artificial "AIDS" patients by giving healthy people immunosuppressant ARVs."

Didn't I just say there would be no long term impact of injecting subclinical amounts of botulism toxin?

Well yes, your statement is true in that it has never been proven that nucleoside analogues are immunosupressants. They have been proven to cause dozens of side effects, probably due to the effects on mitochondrial DNA replication. But immune impairment is not one of them. And they have never been proven to cause sudden irreparable damage years after the drugs have been cut.

> hey have never been proven to cause sudden > irreparable damage years after the drugs have> been cut.

You forgot so soon the woman that heads this article?

> it has never been proven that nucleoside > analogues are immunosupressants.

http://www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/2930/thornton.pdf

"...clinicians should have anunderstanding of the potential impact of drug therapy on the bone marrow and overall immunosuppression in patients infected with HIV.IATROGENIC IMMUNOSUPPRESSION from drug exposure could adversely influence the outcome of HIV therapy..."

Ignorance, rightout lies or both? from the HIV mongering front with love! or hate?

Yes. Karri Stokely, who kept telling everyone how healthy she was and how her immune system was fine, until she suddenly got really sick and died of the poisonous drugs she stopped taking years earlier. Interesting poison that is. It only works after you stop taking it.

I should have clarified. AZT cause netropenia and granulocytopenia, neither a hallmark of AIDS, while on the drug.

The drugs have never been proven to cause long-term selective immunodestruction years after they are stopped. And many of the drugs have not been shown to have any immune effect whatsoever.

> a poison that causes greater symptoms among> those that don't take it

You made up this one yesterday, rught? No citations of course.

“...From April 1996 through December 2000, a total of 501 antiretroviral-naive HIV-seropositive patients who initiated HAART were recruited .... After 24 months of follow-up, 42 (16.5%) of 255 patients were considered to have a discordant immune response [low CD4 cell counts with low viral load or high CD4 cell counts with high viral load] .... Most (death or adverse) events (29 [65%] of 44 events) occurred within the FIRST YEAR AFTER INITIATION OF HAART. Overall, clinical events were not more frequent among patients with a discordant immune response than among patients with a good immunologic response.”

“...Of the 1735 patients who initiated HAART, 186 patients died and 37 were lost to follow-up during 1955 person years of follow-up. Out of these patients, 103 (46.1%) died within 3 months AFTER HAART INITIATION.”

“...By Dec 31, 2008, 23 699 patients (12%) of the 196 368 new patients who initiated ART in Malawi were known to have died. Although nearly two-thirds of deaths happened within 3 months after starting ART....A further 24 409 patients (12%) were classifi ed as “lost to follow-up”...Operational research has shown that 50% of patients lost to follow-up have died.”

"...…This was a cohort study of 320 treatment-naïve adults who started ART between October 2003 and November 2006…Mortality was found to be high, with the majority of deaths occurring within 3 months of starting ART.”

“...very short survival after HAART initiation among patients initially categorized as lost but who were eventually confirmed dead (i.e., 42 days)…in this study, nearly 60% of all deaths within the first year would not have been detected unless patient tracing was performed…The finding of substantial death rates among patients who are lost to follow-up also suggests that death rates after HAART initiation in the developing world may be higher than previously suspected.”

Those studies don't prove anything for you. Kari Stokely's immune system declined AFTER she stooped HAART. You suggest that was the effects of HAART that somehow carried over.

Jon Barnett's numbers are still declining after he stopped HAART, which he was on for only a short time. You and he say HAART was also responsible.

You have to prove that a medicine can cause selective decline in a specific cell line, doing most of the damage after it is no longer taken.

Do not show a study of people who were suffered from AIDS before they started HAART, and claim it supports your view that HAART was responsible. Because that is seemingly what you just did. " In our cohort more than half of the patients had clinical AIDS AT ENROLLMENT INTO HIV CARE, and other African ART programs have also reported high rates of advanced disease"

So if the drugs are the sole cause of AIDS, they cause AIDS before you take them, and they cause AIDS years after they are stopped. If the drugs are not the sole cause, how many causes are there? And why did all these causes appear around the same time?

1. One person is not a representative sample to extract conclussion to the population at large,

2. The damages that caused her death are reported in the ARV inserts as "deadly side effects".

3. Her medical history before being diagnosed with "hiv" is brimming with probable causes of death.

if you listen carefully to what Karri is saying in that interview with Robert Scott Bell, she describes severe problems from breast surgery that caused infection and use of antibiotics and a very clear assault on her immune system.

That was followed in later years by severe anatomical problems from botched surgery at first childbirth that involved failure to heal, massive antibiotic therapy and, once again, a massive assault on her immune system.

In 1995 at her second time of giving birth there were problems with the C Section, failure to heal and an immune system very clearly under massive pressure.

It was shortly after that when she was tested for 'HIV', clearly a medical short-circuiting that seems, at the very least, to ignore her history.

She tests positive and is then put on highly toxic anti-HIV chemotherapy which clearly attacks the DNA and gives rise to all kinds of complications and is known to last for many years, maybe in some cases forever, even after they are stopped.

"Where did you get the "suffering" from? You're making assuptions again..."

That paper. The one you cited. The one that cited statistics about how many of the participants started malnourished, with severe anemia, and disseminated infections.

YOU were the one who brought up Karri Stokely and said her death was due to HAART. If you want to talk about concluding things from one patient. We take statistically relevant data, and Snout has cited the vast difference in life expectancy between those on therapy and those HIV+ off of it. Now you are saying that her immune failure waas due to all sorts of reasons, and HAART was only one factor.

YOU are the one who cannot explain why any other virus was isolated with higher standards than HIV. Who cannot explain why a picture of dozens of particles that look like viruses and no cellular debris in sitehttp://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/images/hiv_tm_em.jpgis worse than micrographs of other viruses. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/7206.jpghttp://www.esrf.eu/news/general-old/general-2009/Influenza-Virus.jpg

Most of them have no scale, and I'm fairly sure that viruses are not viable after being bombarded with electrons.

In addition, you have never stated the cause of polio if not the polio virus or explained how there could be cases of polio traced back to contaminated vaccine, when we got the wrong virus.

You also think that vaccines are ineffective, which means that you have to explain where all the cases of measles went. Or rubella. Or smallpox, even from the unhygienic areas of the globe.

Your views are so out there and so lacking in credibility, that your arrogant impregnation of my scientific credentials is laughable.

Pretty sure, I am not the one who is biased and lacking a scientific mind, here.

The "strongly worded letter" the ReThinking AIDS facebook group promised has yet to materialize. It was promised 48 hours ago and that self imposed deadline has passed and no letter! Perhaps their righteous indignation has nutted already!

And the other FB page Celia Farber wanted to "reinvigorate" has amassed a whopping 15 members in 72 hours!

While I agree with you for the most part-i.e."rallying the troops"- I fear that these alternative ( to reality) proselytisers may hang on *forever* despite hard evidence, scientific consensus and public opinion. Interestingly sometimes old ideas don't die: I have some 1960 alt med compilations that 'new stylee' proselytisers echo today. Let's hope that their numbers continue to decline.

I just noticed the guys over at QA.com have also initiated a letter writing campaign to The Guardian. They ask that everyone who writes a letter to please tell everyone they have done so at that particular thread. They think 100 letters should do it! But alas, after 4 days not one person has said they have written a letter!

It is also now 4 days and the letter and petition at RA facebook have not materialized either.

Celia Farber is paranoid. The comment below to which she is referring, was not made about her. So I guess she is paranoid and egotistical.

Yvonne Bender ‎Celia Ingrid Farber .12 hours ago

Celia Ingrid Farber I'll answer you following an apology for the false accusation that I went on radio and said I wouldn't "shag" an HIV positive person. You neo-FB dissidents will say anything.7 hours ago

Celia Farber is up to her old tricks; she is ranting and raving like a lunatic and then deleting her comments! This is going on at the RA facebook page.

Just one day after she was preaching about dissidents taking a non violent approach to discussions and giving people "Spirit Boosts" she went on a crazy rampage of violent language against several people! All it seems, because of the Parenzee Case from several years ago. Can't they ever let stuff go and get along? It's confusing. I can't tell if she hates Brink or Crowe or who exactly due to her looooonnnngggg screaming rants HALF IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE HER POINT EVEN MORE VIOLENT!!!

But don't look for them because she took them down.

OOOPPPSSS, but thank God I saved them! heheheee

Yep, I copy/pasted them. Such good fortune! Any suggestions where I could post them? hint, hint, Seth!

Truthy, looks like Celia has never seen your website. She wants to know why no one cares about all the people Clark Baker freed from prison. You think anyone will have the heart to tell her Clarkie had nothing to do with those cases?

This is Humpty dumpty... now that Clarkie and Celia are fumbling their words... I am the new denialist spokesperson. Here are the first denialist words I spoke centuries ago... when I pointed out we can make words mean whatever we want... we don't need to listen to scientists.... just redefine the problem by redefining the words! WE DENY THAT REALITY EXISTS!

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.''The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.''The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

And that is why I deny the lie... that all the King's men can't put the Denialist egg back together again.

notElon, I doubt it would matter if Celia Farber read my site and absorbed every word. She and the other hard core denialists, and there is no other appropriate word for them, will never believe the facts about any aspect of HIV no matter how those facts are presented. I could dip facts in gold, encrust them with jewels and present them in a Tiffany box and the denialists would still reject them. But ain't it fun trying? :)

Celia Farber seems to be a very disturbed woman. I am not trying to be funny nor cruel. But her tirades at RA facebook are very disturbing. One day she seems calm and introspective, the next day she is spitting vile and violence and directly contradicting her previous statements. The word for that is hypocrisy. And then the next day her meds kick back in and she deletes her violent tirades.

This Brian Deer story inspired her to restart her Anti-"Denialist" facebook page, garnering all of 15 members in the past week. Now she wants to start another facebook page called "Transcending AIDS". She really needs to schedule an appoint with Seth for some hard core counselling. Seth, if you can't prescribe meds for her, then slip them in her tea. She seems like a tea drinker to me...or perhaps shove her back into the "happy box" with the "light the frequency of pure love!"

They carry on because they have nothing else to do with their lives and denialism represents- at least in their fevered imaginations- a chance at fame and fortune rather than realistically trying to salvage what remains of their thusfar sadly disappointing lives. You know, in middle age you can turn things around- study, work, make friends, get a hobby, oh why not? There's a whole big world out there!

However, I am a realist and doubt that either of them will abandon their 'claim to fame'- after all, it may all that they have. Sad.

I wonder if you would please remove whatever it was you posted here some time ago, pertaining to my visit to a clinic called The Life Vessel Institute. I was directed there by a good friend who was concerned about my health after I had developed severe pneumonia, chronic fatigue, and crippling depression. I wrote about it on my Facebook Page primarily so concerned friends in Sweden could know how I was doing. The Life Vessel Institute is an extraordinary place and the people there treated me with great love and dignity. I don't want their name misrepresented, and my illness and healing was a private matter that doesn't belong here, as material for mockery. Please remove it. I think if you start to adhere to at least some standards of dignity toward other people, and freedom of medical choice, you will feel better. There is a tremendous amount of information emerging about healing modalities for various illnesses. For people with AIDS, reparation of the gut is the most promising avenue, because it brings candida under control, which some ARV drugs can also play a role in, transiently. Please remove all mention of my private medical struggles, which were obtained by invasion. Please also refrain from attacking and misrepresenting people who are HIV positive and trying to get well. It's not right. If you have any questions about anybody's health you should, as a real journalist would, contact them, or their families, ask for facts, and report only with their blessing. All else is just a violation of patient's rights, and human rights. It's also not journalism. Thank you.

I disagree. It is journalism, because you stated that recommendation in a public venue. Seth did not mention it with regard to your health. That might indeed be a private matter. You are not a persin of any great importance, whose individual health choices should be publicized and mocked.

But Seth only mentioned the Life Vessel Institute with regard to your public suggestion that a dying person should go there instead of seeking treatment for HIV. The Life Vessel Institute might do great things to provide pain and stress relief, but empirically such symptomatic treatments have not done as well as the control of the underlying cause. Of course, you believe that cause doesn't exist, but Seth [and facts] disagree.

Seth also did not say anything about the Life Vessel Center that their own website does not say. If you feel self-conscious about "using frequency, vibration, sound and light to enable a person to reach a natural state of relaxation," then you should not have recommended it.

I wonder if I could trouble you to remove all the homicidally misleading drivel you have written over the years about HIV/AIDS and its prevention and treatment.

Unfortunately, a number of people have died as a result of believing your blithering idiocy, and numerous others have suffered substantial harm.

Please note that when you post private medical details about yourself all over the internet (as you did in your second sentence above) they cease to be private. If you don't want such details to be subject to public discussion - including the possibility of mockery - then keep them private.

Please also note that if you pen gushing testimonials about charlatans who use ridiculous modalities to con seriously ill people into giving them money for unproven and useless treatments, then mockery is the very least you can expect. You can style it "health freedom" if you like, but most of us will recognise it as fraud of the most venal and exploitative kind.

Please also note that if people with HIV post private details about their own health on the internet in an effort to deceive their readers into rejecting competent medical advice and as a result those readers suffer harm, then you can be pretty damned sure that those publicly posted "private details" will be subject - at the very least - to extensive scrutiny and discussion. No matter how hard you and your friends try to cast that information down the memory hole when things go horribly wrong.

Finally, please also note that Seth is not a journalist, even by your own very loose understanding of the profession.

First of all, Ms. Farber never said she was suffering from "severe pneumonia" on her FB page regarding the Life Vessel. She only said it was due to her Post Traumatic Stress disorder! (Which is offensive to War Vets and others who actually suffer from PTSD.) What a blatant lie! However, a chamber full of light of any frequency has not been shown to kill pneumonia causative organisms. Unless of course you are using high intensity UV light like in a laminar flow hood used in laboratories. But that is not good for humans, to say the least.

Next, Ms. Farber is quite the hypocrite. She accuses Seth of not treating people with dignity and that he needs to contact the person or their families regarding issues of their health. Much like Ms. Farber did when she viciously, and violently railed against Kim Bannon's father and Kim's best friends at QA.com! That was some of the most disgusting, vile tirades I have ever read! Not to mention libel and slander of Kim's father. Did you sue yourself for that, Ms. Farber? You hypocrite.

Please Ms. Farber, stop being a lying, manipulative hypocrite. Grow up and practice what you preach.

Dear DOCTOR Kalichman:I wonder if you would please LEAVE on your website all the publicity surrounding Celia-Attention-Whore-Pathetic-Idiot Farber's visit to the "Love-Wave Chamber." Any scam enterprise that purports to treat pneumonia by shoving them in a "love capsule" is as phony as the ideology that denialists like Celia maintain. Pneumonia should be treated with antibiotics, not idiocy.Facebook is not private, nor should it be expected so. The law has established that, as well as common sense. However, Celia has made a notorious career out of demonstrating that she lacks an understanding of both.Celia's "illness" is not a private matter, as she publicized this "life-love chamber" scam.

Furthermore, Celia shows in her usual illogic that she fails to understand the very concepts that she asks you to adhere to - medical choice and dignity. She is as undignified as trash comes - blaspheming families, thrashing about filing lawsuits, and manipulating people into believing lies which often end up in their deaths. This isn't "medical choice." It is death by ignorance - which she promotes. "Medical choice" is based in informed decision-making. Celia gutter-slut Farber is an impediment to that."Reparation of the gut" is Celia's latest blathering. And there is NO evidence that anything that Celia is whining about was obtained by "invasion."

Furthermore, she needs to educate herself that the greatest "attacker" who misrepresents people who are HIV positive - is her and her ilk (e.g. Clarkie Baker). Providing them with accurate knowledge about HIV to counter her bullshit is a public service that should be lauded.

Interestingly, she refers to you as a journalist. Last I heard, she is the only one who calls herself a "journalist" - although she is a failed one. You are a professor and a researcher, and like most other things of obviousness - that escapes Celia. Reporting on the condition of anyone's health, especially public hypocrites like Maggiore, Bannon, Stokely, et al is NOT a violation of rights - she has nothing to back that up. She wants to have her cake and eat it to - hold these people up as the paragons of denialism then stifle the press when they die. Sue people for calling her out. Silencing public health advocates like Jeffries. Hypocrisy to the maximum. Reporting on the sad fate of these people is RESPONSIBLE and a public health service, as far as anyone else (other than Celia) is concerned.

Finally, she demonstrates incredible chutzpah talking about "human rights." I might suggest that over 300,000 people in South Africa lost their rights as humans to live because mental dimwits like Celia Farber and ignoramus like Peter Duesberg. Celia talking about human rights would be funny if it weren't so reminiscent of Hitler talking about kindness.

Celia's letter is a masterpiece of bullshit - like her failed career, her mental fragility, and her constant and unwavering manipulation of those who are vulnerable. Certainly she has a lot to be depressed about, and a "love chamber" isn't going to be the solution to her problems. Any "love chamber" service that purports to "treat" pneumonia or idiocy should be exposed as a scam as well.

We should make a deal with Farber. We can omit reference to "the Life Vessel Institute" if she promises to post new inane material on this website every day. Otherwise, I think we should all post thousands of references to the 3 Hz cure.

Celia, what would it take? We need a new comment from you everyday! C'mon, give us fresh meet. We welcome your freedom of speech! The more you talk, the more you discredit denialists.

it was not proven that she died of AIDS.... she died from a condition she had 4 years before she was diagnosed with AIDS... the drug she took worsten her initial condition... if you have time read "AIDS: The Crime Beyond Belief by William L.C. Scott & Donald W. Scott". I'm sure you folks believed they landed on the moon too....

Counter-suit is certainly an enticing idea but it would probably tie up judicial systems in several countries for years because denialists - and other alt med prevaricators- habitually shoot their mouths off - most likely, unrestrained by higher cortical activity : giving atrocious, dangerous medical advice, frightening people off pharmaceutical products while playing fast and loose with facts about their critics' sources of income- and just about everything else. Oddly enough, these are the creatures who are doing the suing: reasonable people would expect it to be *the other way round*!

Ms. Farber also recently wrote, at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page, that there have been many times when she has been homeless. She said she was so broke she had to move out of her NY apartment because she sublet it at times. This is not someone who is concerned with her privacy.

Nope she came back. Trying to get people to contribute some spare change for a site to support her "assumption" all AIDS is caused by degeneration of the digestive tract. Unfortunately, her appeal isn't going to well. Someone suggested she host a bake sale.

@Concerned Citizen:Another complete lie from the lying bullshit that vomits out of Farber's mouth. Faber's daddy pays for everything for her. She takes many holidays, etc. For crying out loud - she even went to New Mexico on a holiday and paid to sit in a "love chamber"! Does that sound like a homeless person to you?

She has borderline personality disorder and is a liar. She wants to elicit some sort of sympathy and masturbate her victimization complex by saying these lies. If she can't afford to live in NYC, she could easily move to many places where the cost of living is lower (everywhere else).

Farber is a real piece of shit. Not just any turd, but a lying, borderline, pathetic, narcissistic, loser attention-whore who associates with real intellectual "gems" like Clark Baker.

Celia Farber is scamming/begging for money again! The new site she wants to create "Transcending AIDS" is going to be a "hub of awareness, stories blah blah blah". She originally was very adamant that it was to be a completely free site. NOW she is in cohoots with Jonathan Barnett and is wanting to charge anywhere from $5 to $60! What a scam!

I would think she would have learned by now that internet content should be free. She begged for money for her Truth Barrier Site and scored a goose egg. QA.com just sponsored (begged) for a measly $250 and only THREE people (besides their anonymous matcher) donated and TWO of those where Jonathan Barnett himself.

What do they expect when most all AIDS Denialists are on disability, scamming the government for their income. Don't forget they do this despite claiming to be extremely healthy. Karri Stokely famously claimed she would proudly accept disability insurance until she died at age 99 from old age! And the worst offender of this is John Robert Hankins who claims he has been HIV+ for 26 years and never taken ARVs and is as healthy as a horse. Yet he can be found at RA facebook talking about his Section 8 housing and doing crystal meth and other drugs!

These people are denialists to the core. They deny every aspect of HIV/AIDS as well as their own pathetic reality. So sad. So funny.

HIV advocacy groups call for investigation into handling of Michigan criminal case. Absolutely it is vital we identify where the system failed,” said Nicole Seguin of the Positive Women’s Network of Michigan. Tut tut.

Which is why The American Independent’s reporting led Josh Moore, a prominent attorney in HIV law, to opine that either the public health system had suffered a “catastrophic failure” or the accused “is not HIV-positive.”

The non-Disclosure ? What about the non – disclosure of non specific HIV Antibody tests to patients that include literature such as the specificity and limitations of those tests ? How many years should the medical practicioners be sent to prison for knowing this and not disclosing it to the patients before even contemplating drawing blood ? There's a law against that too .

I rest my case.

Andy Lindsay. (whose hiv negative status was withheld by pharma paid psychcopaths along with the non disclosure of the limitations and specificity of HTLV 111 tests).

Once again, you are lying. There were no "cases" like you talk about. You also had no "involvement" like you claim, other than the Air Force calling you a kook. hivinnocenceproject.com reveals your lies, once again.

HIV as the causative agent of AIDS is well established - as established as your idiocy. Someone's life can depend on disclosures, often - especially if someone doesn't disclose their HIV + status or in some cases, lies about their status and has unprotected intercourse. Now, Clarkie - go crawl back to your 82 year old wife who supports you. Or take some college classes - as at age 55, you have yet to get an education.

Clark Baker and Celia Farber combined have the intellectual capacity of a deformed turd. Yet interestingly, separately and together they have incredible intense delusional narcissistic disorders sprinkled with borderline aspects and victimization complexes. Clarkie is a typical example of a person who became a traffic cop for feelings of inadequacy and craving some sort of authority feeling to compensate for a low station in life, while Celia is a histrionic bitch who thinks she is deep in her thoughts and simply writes emotional drivel.

They never followed Robert Downey Junior's advice in "Tropic Thunder": Never Go Full Retard.

Can someone ask Celia and Clark how their "appeal" is going in the libel case that they both got sodomized in?

I'm sure their answer would be fascinating as telling the truth (there is no appeal; no lawyer wants to touch these fools with a 10 foot pole) would be scary for them. Admitting to anyone (or themselves) that they are lying hypocritical uneducated fools who few take seriously would create a rip in the time-space continuum.

Regarding the "strongly worded letter" to Brian Deer and the Guardian by the ReThinking AIDS flunkies, Celia Farber has admitted that the letter is written, but then they never bothered to follow up. She admits they were temporarily fired up, and then their ire fizzled out. It's been three weeks and they have still not sent it nor gotten any signatures. It's too late if you ask me. No impact to it now! Just like all their "momentum". Too funny. Here is the FB quote:

Celia Ingrid Farber Anna, the text for the peitition exists. Would you be willing to get involved in sort of putting your spirit behind it. It should be done by somebody "affected" (that's Jonathan B's word.) Basically, it was another case of me (and Suman) getting really fired up and then suddenly losing some essential factor in making something move forward. Suman wanted an HIV positive person or people's to drive the petition. I agreed. I can't say exactly what happened with that. But we wrote it. It's GOOD. And I would like to send it to you. May I? We can all do this together. I would love to have you involved.Friday at 9:35am ·

You know, I survey alt med provocateurs and have noticed something: they're always trying to get a protest or political action going ( when they're not suing someone) *but* it rarely gets anywhere. At heart, these efforts to 'assist others','right wrongs' and get the 'truth' out are in essence PR and rallying the troops to lift flagging interest and raise funds.-btw- So are the lawsuits.

I am willing to give Celia Farber $1,000.00! Or anyone who can provide proof to support the many claims by Clark Baker regarding his supposed success with HIV Criminalization Cases. I have posted the Award at my sites, HIV Innocence Project Truth and HIV Innocence Group Truth.

I have also posted that I will give $100,000.00 to anyone who can prove that Clark Baker is the sole person responsible for causing Humanitarians around the world to become interested in HIV Criminalization Cases due to Mr. Baker's supposed successes via OMSJ and HIV Innocence Group/Truth as Mr. Baker recently claimed!

As a mark of the bewildering status of the HIV theory, while HIV proteins could not be found in the placentas of 75 HIV positive pregnant women (1), they could be found in the placentas of 25 healthy, HIV negative women! (2)

It's only bewildering if you have no idea what the studies involve, or about the role of HERVs in pregnancy. You've been conned so easily, yet imagine your cutting and pasting from denialist websites represents access to great insight. Sadly there'll always be gullible people like you around to keep the cult going.

"Cryostat sections of human normal term placentae were studied for evidence of immunopathology by using antibodies to lymphocytes, macrophages, platelets, and coagulation factors. ... Antigens gp120 and p17 were identified in normal chorionic villi in vimentin-positive fibroblast-like cells and in endothelium, respectively. Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis..."

I convinced the woman that she had nothing wrong and the HIV test was simply telling she was pregnant.

HIV/AIDS is bizarro land... the crooks would have medicated her and her child to death for simply having a placenta!

How does mortality compare with the general Rwandan population for pregnant mothers, most of which are HIV-:

64 infants out of 1000 infants died which is a HIGHER mortality rate when compared to the 44 infants who died in the 1446 group of HIV+ women investigated. (http://www.indexmundi.com/rwanda/infant_mortality_rate.html)

The study also claims a 40% higher survival rate for infants if their HIV+ mothers were on ARV treatment and at the same time admits that those results are statistically insignificant.

My interpretation of these figures is that HIV+ mothers who are being monitored in this way receive better health care than the general population. Hence the lower infant mortality rate. If that was not case I assert that infant mortality for HIV+ mothers when compared to HIV- mothers is about the same, any difference being statistically inisignificant.

The fact that HIV does no cause an increase in infant mortality strongly suggest that HIV -if it exists- is not causing anything.

"...By 2009, 61% of HIV-positive pregnant women received ARV...This community-based household survey was conducted between February and May 2009"

So 39% were treatment naive. According to hiv-mongering orthodoxy they would have huge chances (30% - 80%) of giving birth to hiv+ children.Does the data confirm the gloomy hiv-mongers' predictions? Let's see...

The study doesn't say whether the 44 dead kids were infected with hiv or born to untreated mothers, so we leave them out.

Of the 1402 surviving children, 855 (61%) were born to ARV mothers, and 546 (39%) to untreated mothers. 53 children were hiv+. Orthodoxy says transmission rate for ARV mothers is 2%. Let's assume it's true... what would then be the transmission rate for hiv?

2% of 855 gives 17 hiv+ children for the ARV group. We've 36 hiv+ children left for the untreated group.

36/546= 6.5% transmission rate for the untreated group.

So even by orthodox views, ARV treatment will only prevent 4.5 infections out of 100 untreated births! What is the cost of this "prevention"? Permanent damage to the mitochondria of 100 healthy kids in order to "save" 4!!!

What's the ethics of this carnage, may I ask?

Mitochondria have their own DNA, and damage to them is an irreversible life-long burden. It’s been known for a long time that the antiretroviral treatment of pregnant "hiv+" women, purportedly to prevent transmission of HIV, actually damages the mitochondria of the babies:

actually Outhane X-stupid is trolling the Facebook group Rethinking AIDS and what appears to be a cheap bribe, most of us don't think you guys should be trolling there, stay here and keep up the slander. Catholics with Catholics and Baptists with Baptists.

Again this "viral isolation" is nothing more than a surrogate. They want to sell an arbitrarily selected level p24 in a co-culture (direct culture of hiv remaisn to this day impossible) at the price of hiv "isolation".

This chemical assault is suposed to replicate the "natural" conditions of hiv infection... oh well...

"... Virus production was monitored by syncytia formation and by frequent CA-p24 ELISA on the culture supernatant...d CA-p24 values were determined when required. Values over 0.1 ng/ml were regarded as positive..."

I've read your paper with interest and there's one question I'd like you kindly respond:

Why didn' t your team use a control cell culture subject to the same chemical manipulations as the hiv co-culture in order to exclude that stimulated cellular productions could wrongly be interpreted as "hiv" by the surrogate markers your team used for identification?

Healthy numbers there,Jonathan....CD4 in serious decline and Viral load increases big time.Classical AIDS timeline as well.When will you start your ARVs?Or do you want to go all the way and be the next Karri,Christine,Emery or Kim?

Celia Farber's "Chip In" to build her new website, Transcending AIDS, is a huge failure! It's been 6 days and she has FOUR contributions totaling less than $90 bucks! She has less than 3 days left, can she make it?

The really pathetic thing about this is not the general apathy of the Denialist losers, but the fact that they do not need money to start a site. They could have a great site for free! I think the real issue is Ms. Farber wants to pay herself as an "investigative reporter" for the site. It's the oldest scam in the book. Sad. Very, very sad.

She could dig up the proof that Baker is legitimate and I would be happy to fork over a thousand bucks!!

I am offended by who ever wrote to Jonathan Barnett that his numbers are unhealthy etc...and wrote my initials. JB has disabled my comments and I would like to say that those comments are NOT from me. JTD

JTD, if this offensive youtube comment is not from you, then I suggest you report the channel to youtube and have the account and the IP address of the person who posted it permanently banned.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dissidents4dumbees

Before you do that, you should save the page they posted, including the photo, as evidence.

If the page is deleted before you get a chance to save it, then post a comment here, and I will forward you a saved copy.

It is a criminal offense "to knowingly and without consent credibly impersonate another person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means with the intent to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud another person."

Celia Farber shut down her begging scam three days early for the new site she wanted to build. Such a failure! Although she is putting a happy face on it saying it's just not the right vehicle at the right time. More like no one wants to be sucked into her scam to pay her rent. Maybe she should just get a job.

The problem for Celia and her ilk like Clarkie is that they can't get a job even if they wanted to. They aren't qualified to do anything, which is why they spout of nonsense (it makes them feel better because they can pretend they are educated).

Clarkie is forced to live off his 82 year old wife while Celia is forced to live off her daddy and occasionally orally fart out histrionic burps of nonsense while pretending to be some tortured writer.

The ridiculous continues at RA FB. Now Clark Baker is suggesting they put up an AIDS Denial Billboard in LA! How the hell are they gonna pay for that when they have proven twice recently (Farber and QA.com) that they can't raise funds? But I pray they do it! Then maybe they will get the attention they have been wanting. Be careful what you wish for, Denialists.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!! Knowing Clarkie, they will staple a flyer to a telephone pole outside his post office box and call it a "national media firestorm." BwaHAHAHA - Clarkie putting up a denial billboard? Hilarious!

See - he just wants some attention for his site - it has always been his plan to try and make money off his post office box of "medical justice" and he is currently failing supremely. Clarkie = Extreme Grande Douchebag, Super-Sized. Fail.

Read Ben Goldacre and keep up with Bad Science

Don't Get Fooled Again: The Skeptic's Guide to Life by Richard Wilson

AIDS Denialism on Law & Order

If you missed the Law & Order episode 'Retro' on AIDS denialism you will want to see the 2-minute Replay. This episode portrays a woman who denies she has HIV in which she and her infant daughter both die of AIDS. Sound familiar? Click the pic to watch.

Learn More about Pseudoscience

Search This Blog

In Denying AIDS, Seth Kalichman provides a fascinating look into the thinking of those who propagate AIDS myths and the negative impact they have on our response to a deadly disease. He shows us how AIDS pseudoscience confuses the public and threatens sound public health policy. Anyone who cares about the global HIV/AIDS pandemic should read this book. Helene D. Gayle, Chair of the 2009 US Presidential Council on AIDS, CEO CARE USA, former Assistant Surgeon GeneralSeth Kalichman brilliantly uses a psychological lens to expose the wacky world that creates and maintains its presence despite the untold numbers of deaths and suffering it has caused. This book is a wake up call to policy makers and scientists, particularly in places most affected by the pandemic, that denialism must be confronted if we want to bring it under control. A must read for those who want to know more about the power and influence of pseudoscience.Michael Merson, Director, Global Health Institute at Duke University and Former Director of the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS.

This excellent book examines the detailed history of HIV/AIDS denialism as well as its damaging impact throughout the world. HIV/AIDS denialism and its proponents have created confusion when the clear provision of scientifically accurate communication was most needed.James Curran, Dean of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Former Director of the CDC HIV/AIDS Division.

Seth Kalichman has superbly captured the contradictions inherent in AIDS denialism. He has deftly uncovered its religious-like fervor, its vociferous proponents and passionate opponents as well as its destructive force when legitimized by the South African President.Salim S. Abdool Karim, Member of the 2000 South African Presidential Panelon AIDS, Professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal, and Director of Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA)

Royalties from Denying AIDS are donated to buy HIV treatments in Africa